Las Vegas mass shooting

[knapplc]

Just now, dudeguyy said:

As a side note, in this discussion... the NRA is such a joke.

 

I don't think they give a crap about gun rights or responsibility or any of that jazz. I think they care about gun law deregulation and moving more guns. 

Agree/disagree?

 

If by the bold you mean that they care about making a profit, and ONLY making a profit, then yes I definitely agree.

[TGHusker]

And as we all know - they stroke it from both ends.  When a mass shooting occurs they send out their emails and fliers that regulation is coming 'buy now while the buying is allowed'. 'And tell your congressman to vote no on any regulation'.  They send out the alarm bells knowing full well that no regulations are coming because they 'own' to many republicans to make regulation a possibility.  So sales peak up again after a mass shooting as the gullible & fearful buy, buy, buy.

 

I am so discussed with republican politics - they tie themselves to so many issues and special interest groups that are counter productive to a healthy functioning society. Yes the dems have some affiliations in that regards too - but most of those 'error' on being 'too compassionate' at the expense of sound budgets. But at least they aim at helping their fellow man and seek equal justice - good grief 2 years ago you won't have caught me typing those words on here.  But I'm glad that I am.  At this point, I'm more willing to error towards the Dem side of things than what I've seen from the republican party that has lost its way - it is not the party of Reagan.

 

[Enhance]

29 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

There can be a very fine line between protection of self and protection of stuff.  It becomes a judgement call on behalf of the homeowner and then it becomes a judgement call on behalf of the DA, Judge and Jury.

I don't know if it's a fine line between self/family and stuff. You can't shoot someone if they break in and destroy your dresser. I think it's more of a fine line between just how much danger you face. For example, if you kill someone in your house and there's suspicion as to how in danger you actually were, you might get arrested in Nebraska. But, you could end up being cleared and/or serving a minor punishment.

 

The reason I bring this all up is because I don't think Nebraska law works in favor of having large magazine rounds and being able to fire warning shots in defense of your home. My interpretation (and based on what I've heard from other gun owners in the past) is that firing warning shots could make you guilty of firing a weapon in city limits at a minimum, perhaps all the way up to attempted manslaughter.

[TGHusker]

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

I don't know if it's a fine line between self/family and stuff. You can't shoot someone if they break in and destroy your dresser. I think it's more of a fine line between just how much danger you face. For example, if you kill someone in your house and there's suspicion as to how in danger you actually were, you might get arrested in Nebraska. But, you could end up being cleared and/or serving a minor punishment.

 

The reason I bring this all up is because I don't think Nebraska law works in favor of having large magazine rounds and being able to fire warning shots in defense of your home. My interpretation (and based on what I've heard from other gun owners in the past) is that firing warning shots could make you guilty of firing a weapon in city limits at a minimum, perhaps all the way up to attempted manslaughter.

Yes, one should not justified in have large magazine rounds and firing warning shots.  I've though of shooting warning shots at the squirrels that get into my bird feeders.  But my wife has talked sense into me!

[Moiraine]

Just read that officials still see no connection to "international terrorism."

 

They still don't want to call this what it is.

 

The Orlando shooter had no connections to ISIS. He just said he was a fan. So I guess he wasn't a terrorist either. Except he wasn't White, so he was a terrorist.

[TGHusker]

https://thinkprogress.org/fox-news-cnn-mass-shootings-1ad50b45ba2c/

 

 

It is CNN's fault, so says this FOX guest..... and there was no push back from the Fox and Friends panel

 

quote:

A forensic psychiatrist told Fox News on Tuesday morning that CNN was to blame for mass shootings like what transpired in Las Vegas.

“I think that CNN’s going to have to answer how they demonize gun enthusiasts and how CNN actually contributes to mass shooting,” Michael Welner said. “And I think that they do.”

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

https://thinkprogress.org/fox-news-cnn-mass-shootings-1ad50b45ba2c/

 

 

It is CNN's fault, so says this FOX guest..... and there was no push back from the Fox and Friends panel

 

quote:

A forensic psychiatrist told Fox News on Tuesday morning that CNN was to blame for mass shootings like what transpired in Las Vegas.

“I think that CNN’s going to have to answer how they demonize gun enthusiasts and how CNN actually contributes to mass shooting,” Michael Welner said. “And I think that they do.”

 

 

 

We live in a very very sick sick world.

[Fru]

Man. That's just... I mean... It's difficult to. I got nothing. 

[TGHusker]

You know when one believes in, has hitched their boat to, follows and defends the unfathomable, the unfathomable becomes the normal and justifiable to those believers.   Those who supported Trump (the unfathomable one) now must commit emotional and intellectual suicide to justify that support.  This leads to some pretty crazy thinking and statements as exemplified  by this forensic psychiatrist.

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

Just read that officials still see no connection to "international terrorism."

 

They still don't want to call this what it is.

 

The Orlando shooter had no connections to ISIS. He just said he was a fan. So I guess he wasn't a terrorist either. Except he wasn't White, so he was a terrorist.

Here's the problem; If he's not affiliated with any group, and didn't explicitly state his intentions how is it anything other than a mass murder? Terrorism needs a motive, movement, something political to terrorize people about before it's terrorism.

[Landlord]

22 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Here's the problem; If he's not affiliated with any group, and didn't explicitly state his intentions how is it anything other than a mass murder? Terrorism needs a motive, movement, something political to terrorize people about before it's terrorism.

 

 

Unless it's a brown person.

[Moiraine]

47 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Here's the problem; If he's not affiliated with any group, and didn't explicitly state his intentions how is it anything other than a mass murder? Terrorism needs a motive, movement, something political to terrorize people about before it's terrorism.

 

 

That's all beside the point. If the non-White people immediately get called terrorists when they kill multiple people, this guy is also a terrorist. If they didn't then he isn't.

 

The problem is the definition of "terrorist" is fluid depending on what color your skin is or what religion you follow.

[teachercd]

34 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Here's the problem; If he's not affiliated with any group, and didn't explicitly state his intentions how is it anything other than a mass murder? Terrorism needs a motive, movement, something political to terrorize people about before it's terrorism.

Because that doesn't fit what some people want...even though it is true.  

 

Was Gacey a terrorist?  Nope...he was a piece of s#!t animal that killed  35 teens and deserved to die in a manner more gruesome than what he got.  

 

If there is not a political aim behind it...it isn't the "T" word.

 

This f'ing loser, right now, is just that...a f'ing loser.  If they find out he did this to send a political message then he is a terrorist.  

 

This isn't hard and it doesn't need to be.  

[Moiraine]

9 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Because that doesn't fit what some people want...even though it is true.  

 

Was Gacey a terrorist?  Nope...he was a piece of s#!t animal that killed  35 teens and deserved to die in a manner more gruesome than what he got.  

 

If there is not a political aim behind it...it isn't the "T" word.

 

This f'ing loser, right now, is just that...a f'ing loser.  If they find out he did this to send a political message then he is a terrorist.  

 

This isn't hard and it doesn't need to be.  

 

 

 

Again, all of that is beside the point.

[ZRod]

38 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

Again, all of that is beside the point.

I'm sorry, but it's not. It's pretty much exactly the point your trying to make. But you're  hung up on the fact that one group over generalizes/ over reacts, and you (sarcastically I think) are suggestion the antithesis of that group to do the same.

 

I agree it's BS that people automatically jump to calling it terrorism.